|
OUR CURRENT VEHICLE CLASS ACTION SUITS
Following is a list of our current cases commenced as class action lawsuits. If you were a customer of any of the dealerships/businesses listed below and are interested in learning whether you may be a member of a potential or certified class, feel free to contact Hawk Barry or John Hanson at (800)466-5366 to learn more, or click their names to send them an e-mail.
NOTE: This list includes ongoing cases in which the defendant denies any wrongdoing. The complaints filed in these cases are a matter of public record, copies of which may be obtained from the respective courts or by contacting our firm.
Nelson v. Pearson Ford
San Diego County Case No. GIC881178
The Court has certified two classes in this case:
(1) All persons who, since March 2, 2003, (1) purchased a vehicle from Pearson Ford for personal use, and (2) on a later date executed an Acknowledgment of Rewritten Contract, and (3) signed a subsequent or second contract for the purchase of the same vehicle, which contract was dated the date of the original purchase contract and involved financing at an annual percentage rate greater than 0.00%.
(2) All persons who, since March 2, 2003, executed a Retail Installment Sale Contract with Pearson Ford that included in the “Cash Price of Motor Vehicle,” on Line 1.A.1 of the contract the cost of insurance.
This case is set for trial on August 11, 2008.
Raceway Ford Cases
Riverside County Case No. RICJCCP4476
The Court has certified three classes in this case:
(1) All persons who, since January 12, 2001, (1) purchased a vehicle from Raceway Ford, for personal use, (2) on a later date rescinded their original purchase contract, and (3) signed a subsequent or second contract for the purchase of the same vehicle, which contract was dated the date of the original purchase contract and involved financing at an annual percentage rate greater than 0.00%.
(2) All persons who, since January 12, 2001, purchased a used vehicle from Raceway Ford for personal use and were charged “California Tire Fees” even though Raceway Ford had previously paid the tire fees to the seller of the tires at the time Raceway Ford purchased the tires.
(3) All persons except for Robert Loverso who, since January 12, 2001, purchased a diesel vehicle from Raceway Ford for personal use and were charged a smog fee and a smog certification fee.
Please see www.racewayfordclassaction.com for more information.
Lozano v. Rogers & Rogers Toyota
Imperial County Case No. ECU03347
The Court has certified the following class in this case:
All persons who, since November 1, 2002, (1) purchased a vehicle from R&R, for personal use, (2) on a later date rescinded their original purchase contract, and (3) signed a second or subsequent purchase contract for the same vehicle, which contract was dated the date of the original purchase contract and which involved financing at an annual percentage rate greater than 0.00%.”
The Court also certified the following subclass:
All persons who, since November 1, 2002, (1) purchased a vehicle from R&R, for personal use, (2) were provided with a Spanish-language translation of their original purchase contract, (3) on a later date rescinded their original purchase contract by signing a “New Contract/Acknowledgement of Rewritten Contract,” (4) were not provided with a Spanish-language translation of the “New Contract/Acknowledgement of Rewritten Contract,” and (5) signed a second or subsequent purchase contract for the same vehicle on a later date, which contract was dated the date of the original contract and which involved financing at an annual percentage rate greater than 0.00%.
This case is set for trial on February 18, 2009.
Randall v. Keyes Lexus
Los Angeles County Case No. BC375748
The Court has certified the following class in this case:
All persons who, since August 10, 2003, (1) leased or purchased a vehicle from Keyes Lexus, and (2) were charged, and paid, $28 for the Optional DMV Electronic Filing Fee. Excluded from this Class are class members in Ronald Kay v. Keylex, Inc. dba Keyes Lexus, Case No. GIC 852613 (Superior Court, San Diego) whose lease agreement did not separately state and/or identify the $28 “Optional DMV Electronic Filing Fee.
Trial has not yet been set.
Diaz v. Southwest Chrysler Jeep & Drive Financial
Riverside County Case No. RIC495286
The Complaint seeks relief for the following proposed classes:
1. All persons who, since March 1, 2004, purchased a vehicle for personal use from Southwest Chrysler Jeep and signed a subsequent or second purchase contract for the same vehicle on a later date, which purchase contract was dated the date of the original contract, and which involved financing at an annual percentage rate (“APR”) greater than 0.0%.
2. All persons who, since March 1, 2004, purchased a vehicle for personal use from Southwest Chrysler Jeep, signed an “Automobile Hold Check Agreement” and the amount subject to the “Automobile Hold Check Agreement” was disclosed on the Retail Installment Sale Contract as a cash down payment, not a deferred down payment.
Plaintiffs also seek certification of a subclass of each class for all class members whose vehicles were assigned to Drive Financial
Services.
Trial has not yet been set.
Montano v. Carriage Motors and AmeriCredit
Riverside County Case No. RIC458585
The Complaint seeks relief for the following proposed classes:
1. All persons who, since October 13, 2002, (1) purchased a vehicle from Carriage for personal use, (2) on a later date rescinded their original Retail Installment Sale Contract (“RISC”), and (3) signed a subsequent or second RISC for the purchase of the same vehicle, which RISC was dated the date of the original RISC and involved financing at an annual percentage rate greater than 0.00%.
2. All persons who, since October 13, 2002, (1) purchased a vehicle from Carriage for personal use pursuant to a RISC, (2) made a deferred down payment, and (3) whose RISC does not disclose that some portion of the down payment would be deferred until not later than the due date of the second regularly scheduled installment under the RISC and that was not subject to a finance charge.
Plaintiff also seeks certification of a subclass of each of the above-noted Classes for those Class members whose RISCs were
assigned to AmeriCredit Financial Services.
Trial has not yet been set.
Villegas/Gonzales v. Fuller Ford
San Diego County Case No. 37-2008-00077681-CU-FR-CTL
The Complaint seeks relief for the following proposed class:
All persons who, since February 7, 2004, purchased a vehicle from Fuller Ford and signed a subsequent or second purchase contract for the same vehicle on a later date, which purchase contract was dated the date of the original contract, and which involved financing at an annual percentage rate (“APR”) greater than 0.0%.
Trial has not yet been set.
Reza v. Acura of Riverside
Riverside County Case No. RIC476428
The Complaint seeks relief for the following proposed class:
All persons who, since June 1, 2003, purchased a vehicle from Acura of Riverside and signed a subsequent or second purchase contract for the same vehicle on a later date, which purchase contract was dated the date of the original contract, and which involved financing at an annual percentage rate (“APR”) greater than 0.0%.
Trial has not yet been set.
Tollard v Poway Toyota
San Diego County Case No. 37-2007-00082471-CU-BT-CTL
The Complaint seeks relief for the following proposed class:
All persons who, since April 29, 2003 purchased a vehicle from Poway Toyota, rescinded their contract, and signed a subsequent or second contract for the same vehicle that was backdated to the date of the original contract.
The Court has set a hearing on class certification for October 24, 2008.
MacDonald/Wood v. North County Jeep GMC Kia
San Diego County Case No. 37-2007-00088081-CU-C0-NC
The Complaint seeks relief for the following proposed classes:
1. All persons who purchased a used vehicle from Defendant EJE, Inc. (d.b.a. North County Jeep GMC Kia) that was not equipped with new tires, but who were charged a California Tire Fee.
2. All persons who were provided vehicle insurance without proper disclosure in conjunction with a contract to purchase a vehicle from EJE, Inc. (d.b.a. North County Jeep GMC Kia).
Trial is set for June 12, 2009.
Sanchez v. Superior Nissan of Fremont
Alameda County Case No. HG08366304
The Complaint seeks relief for the following proposed class:
1. All persons who, since August 30, 2003, (a) purchased a vehicle from Superior Nissan; (b) traded-in a vehicle as part of their purchase; (c) were given the Acknowledgment of Rewritten Contract form; and (d) then signed a subsequent or second contract.
2. All persons who, since August 30, 2003, (a) purchased or leased a demonstrator, executive, service vehicle, rental, lease or loaner vehicle from Superior Nissan; and (b) the vehicle’s use as a demonstrator, service, executive, rental, or loaner vehicle by Superior Nissan was not clearly and conspicuously disclosed on the vehicle’s Buyer’s Guide, Monroney Sticker, or any other advertisement.
3. All persons who, since August 30, 2003, (a) purchased a demonstrator, executive, service vehicle, rental, lease, loaner or other used vehicle from Superior Nissan; and (b) were assessed a California Tire Fee.
4. All persons who, on or after July 1, 2006, (a) purchased a demonstrator, executive, service vehicle, rental, lease or loaner vehicle from Superior Nissan; and (b) which sale was not accompanied with an offer of a Contract Cancellation Agreement by Superior Nissan.
The Court has set a hearing on class certification for October 15, 2008.
Sherman v. Moss Bros, Inc.
San Bernardino County Case No. CIVSS 800465
The Complaint seeks relief for the following proposed class:
All persons who (a) purchased a vehicle from Moss Bros. for personal use; (b) on a later date rescinded their original purchase contract; and (c) signed a subsequent or second contract for the purchase of the same vehicle, which contract was dated the date of the original purchase contract and involved financing at an annual percentage rate greater than 0.00%.
Trial has not yet been set.
Velasquez v. Worthington Ford
Los Angeles County Case No. BC387304
The Complaint seeks relief for the following proposed class:
All persons who were sold prior rental vehicle by Worthington Ford where Worthington Ford knew of, but did not disclose, the rental history prior to the sale.
Trial has not yet been set.
Olivas/Vasquez v. 3‑Way Chevrolet
Kern County Case No. S1500CV263397SPC
The Complaint seeks relief for the following proposed class:
All persons who (a) signed a Retail Installment Sales Contract for the purchase on credit of a vehicle from Three-Way for personal, family, or household use; (b) were assisted by Three-Way with obtaining financing; and (c) did not have the terms of the purchase agreement and financing fully and accurately disclosed on the Retail Installment Sales Contract.
Trial has not yet been set.
Romero v. McCune Motors
San Diego County Case No. 37-2008-00080638-CU-FR-CTL
The Complaint seeks relief for the following proposed class:
All persons who purchased a vehicle from Defendant McCune Motors and were charged a California Tire Fee for used tires.
Trial has not yet been set.
Kugler v. Gross Valley Ford
Nevada County Case No. 73538
The Complaint seeks relief for the following proposed class:
All persons who purchased a used vehicle for personal use from Grass Valley Ford Lincoln Mercury Nissan that was not equipped with new tires, but who were charged a California Tire Fee.
Trial has not yet been set.
|
